In Alabama, saying the bible is only "partly true" is attack-ad worthy

[Sclamoz]

They would not have a choice in your scenario. They would be programmed like robots.

No they wouldn't. That would not be required. An all powerful god is literally capable of anything. He would be able to create a world were everyone has freewill but never does anything he doesn't want them to. To say otherwise is to say God has limited powers.

God says Himself that He has mercy on who He will have mercy. What I mean by "stimulous/response" is that there is no method for manipulating God into making Him do what you want. He does say that He works all things together for good for those who love Him (those who loved Him being the redeemed). He does not make such a promise to anyone else. He also says that He send sun to rise on the just and unjust.

This is where you all get lost- you want to say man has complete responsibility for himself, but then if God is in the picture, you want God to take complete responsibility for man and the mistakes He makes. You need to make up your mind. God does intervene, just not all the time. Even if the cause of suffering is due to man.

I'm not lost here at all, you just refuse to acknowledge the contradiction in your belief system.

I'm not saying I want god to take complete responsibility for man and everything, I'm saying he HAS complete responsibility for man and everything that happens (if he exists).

God chooses who to intervene and save from evil according to you (a violation of free will) while he lets others suffer. Even children and infants all because they aren't "redeemed"?

http://innerminds.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/starving-child-stalked-by-vulture.jpg

Any suggestions for children like these how they can convince God not to let them die horribly?

No, I am actually saying the opposite- the views of right and wrong change from person to person and culture to culture. I am also saying what actually is right and wrong does not change through history, which is a completely different thing..

The views of right and wrong are what determines right and wrong, there is no constant. These views have changed frequently throughout history. Please tell us if I'm wrong were do these constant rights and wrongs come from and if they exist why does everyone have different morals?

It is more accurately translated as "calamity." This is why I wanted you to look into it yourself so you can see for yourself.

I'm aware some people translate it that way. Some people don't. Its kind of like right and wrong, open to interpretation.

God could have done whatever He wanted. However, He wanted man to have free will, so He put the Tree in the Garden and gave him the choice.

He did so knowing what the result was going to be, that Adam and Eve would kicked out from Eden and man would have Original sin and millions would burn in hell correct?

Just like God created earthquakes, hurricanes, tsunamis, plagues and diseases and so on?

 

[spittledip]

Witness of the creation as a supernatural event, which is not reasonable. Despite what the Bible says.

As much as I would like to, I cannot force you to understand. You have free will.

Did he cause the earthquake in Haiti or tsunami in Indonesia or the hurricane in New Orleans or etc, etc? Was that God's judgment or just a natural event?

Sorry, I don't have an answer for that. Either explanation is possible.

Obviously not. The scientific method is the supernatural's worst enemy.

Yeah ok this is back and forth and repetitive. we are done.

 

[spittledip]

You're missing the point. You said that you believe in all teachings in the Bible. Therefore:
- Is eating shellfish condemned by the Bible or not? Lev. 11:10 seems to say so
- Now do you consider it a teaching or not?
- If not, what make it less a teaching than anything else in the Bible, how does one chose what is a relevant in the Bible from what is not?
- If yes, then do you eat any kind of shellfish?
- If no, good, apply the same reasoning to textile blends.
- If yes, then you're willingly and knowingly committing what you yourself consider a sin and why would you do that? That would be really immoral and evil

The old covenant that god made with the Israelites has been fulfilled by Christ's sacrifice- the new covenant. We are not under the Law. Not applicable. What you are asking is similar to asking someone to put a cast back on their previously-broken-and-currently-healthy-arm.

 

[totalnoob]

The old covenant that god made with the Israelites has been fulfilled by Christ's sacrifice- the new covenant. We are not under the Law. Not applicable. What you are asking is similar to asking someone to put a cast back on their previously-broken-and-currently-healthy-arm.

So the ten commandments are invalid? Sweet...time to start killing.

 

[Sclamoz]

The old covenant that god made with the Israelites has been fulfilled by Christ's sacrifice- the new covenant. We are not under the Law. Not applicable. What you are asking is similar to asking someone to put a cast back on their previously-broken-and-currently-healthy-arm.

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

-Matthew 5:17-19

 

[spittledip]

No they wouldn't. That would not be required. An all powerful god is literally capable of anything. He would be able to create a world were everyone has freewill but never does anything he doesn't want them to. To say otherwise is to say God has limited powers.

No they wouldn't. Yes they would. no they wouldn't. Yes they would. tiring. Yeah, anyway. this thing you are saying is like that silly "brain teaser" that people say: "Can God make a stone so big and heavy that He cannot lift it?" If a thing is designed as such, no matter how much fidging you do, it is still defined as such. You cannot re-define free will. If people do not have the choice to follow God or not to follow God, then they do not have the free will God wanted them to have. It is that simple. God cannot create contradictions. It would no longer be what it is if He did.

I'm not lost here at all, you just refuse to acknowledge the contradiction in your belief system.

I'm not saying I want god to take complete responsibility for man and everything, I'm saying he HAS complete responsibility for man and everything that happens (if he exists).

God chooses who to intervene and save from evil according to you (a violation of free will) while he lets others suffer. Even children and infants all because they aren't "redeemed"?

http://innerminds.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/starving-child-stalked-by-vulture.jpg

Any suggestions for children like these how they can convince God not to let them die horribly?

Of course God has complete responsibility for everything b/c He has ultimate control. However, This does not negate Him making room for others to exercise free will. Also, who said God does not violate free will sometimes? Is there a rule saying He can never impose His will on someone?
My question to you is what have you done to save that child you are so concerned about? That is the question for mankind. Also, I said that He uses bad circumstances for the good of the redeemed, i did not say he only intervenes for the redeemed. Remember, the sun rises on the just and unjust?

The views of right and wrong are what determines right and wrong, there is no constant. These views have changed frequently throughout history. Please tell us if I'm wrong were do these constant rights and wrongs come from and if they exist why does everyone have different morals?

I already answered this. Morality either has an external source or it does exist at all. What you call morality is subject to individual interpretation. As soon as one person's morality contradicts another person's morality it is impossible to say who has the true definition of morality b/c morality is individually determined. It is completely circular.

I'm aware some people translate it that way. Some people don't. Its kind of like right and wrong, open to interpretation.

It is not a matter of how some people translate it. Within the context it only makes sense to translate it to mean calamity b/c calamity is the opposite of peace, not evil. It is literary style. YHou can't just translate words or read anything however you want- you have to read it according to how the author meant it or how it is consistent within the context- this is not Bible class this is English class.

He did so knowing what the result was going to be, that Adam and Eve would kicked out from Eden and man would have Original sin and millions would burn in hell correct?

Just like God created earthquakes, hurricanes, tsunamis, plagues and diseases and so on?

Yes, that is correct. You don't like that? Oh well, you aren't God and neither am I. Do I think it seems fair? Not really. However, i know that I cannot understand everything and this is one of those things that faith plays a part in. I can reason that b/c it is God, He is fully just and righteous, so i can trust His ways. However, the part of me that feels it is harsh is where the faith comes in.

 

[spittledip]

-Matthew 5:17-19

Exactly what I said- Jesus fulfilled the law.

 

[totalnoob]

spittle, when you call God "righteous" and "holy", do these words mean anything to you, or are they just empty phrases that you utter without thinking? One way you might be able to demonstrate they do is if you could give me an example of something God could do (or command) that would make him seem less righteous to you. This is a pure hypothetical: Is there ANYTHING he could do that would make him less holy in your eyes?

 

[spittledip]

So the ten commandments are invalid? Sweet...time to start killing.

Since people are starting to quote scripture:
Matthew 5:21"You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder,[a] and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' 22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brotherwill be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,[c]' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.

Jesus fleshed out the law. He pointed the way of righteousness is not through observing commandments, but rather presenting one's entire self before God.

 

[spittledip]

spittle, when you call God "righteous" and "holy", do these words mean anything to you, or are they just empty phrases that you utter without thinking? One way you might be able to demonstrate they do is if you could give me an example of something God could do (or command) that would make him seem less righteous to you. This is a pure hypothetical: Is there ANYTHING he could do that would make him less holy in your eyes?

No, there is nothing that He could do to make Himself less Holy. This is not b/c it is not a defined thing- it is b/c Holiness is who He is. It is like asking is there anything a giraffe could do to make it less a giraffe. Holiness is complete perfection; righteousness is complete moral perfection (in reference to God).

edit: I noticed that you phrased the question "less holy in your eyes." These descriptors have nothing to do with how you or I perceive God, they are part of who He is.

 

[totalnoob]

No, there is nothing that He could do to make Himself less Holy. This is not b/c it is not a defined thing- it is b/c Holiness is who He is. It is like asking is there anything a giraffe could do to make it less a giraffe. Holiness is complete perfection; righteousness is complete moral perfection (in reference to God).

If he ordered you kill your child, would you be willing to do it?

 

[jackschmittusa]

It's always funny to hear Christians talk about Mosaic Law. Paul figured out that much of the old law was a turnoff to many prospective converts. So, in a great PR move, he announced that a lot of it didn't apply anymore i.e. no circumcisions required, no silly dietary rules, sacrifices not required, etc..
The laws were discarded as it became convenient. Plastic, pliable, disposable laws from god in a book without error. Gotta love it.

 

[Sclamoz]

No they wouldn't. Yes they would. no they wouldn't. Yes they would. tiring. Yeah, anyway. this thing you are saying is like that silly "brain teaser" that people say: "Can God make a stone so big and heavy that He cannot lift it?" If a thing is designed as such, no matter how much fidging you do, it is still defined as such. You cannot re-define free will. If people do not have the choice to follow God or not to follow God, then they do not have the free will God wanted them to have. It is that simple. God cannot create contradictions. It would no longer be what it is if He did.

Actually this isn't like the brain teaser at all. If God was all knowing and all powerful he would have no trouble constructing a world that worked perfectly and the beings in it operated according to their own free will but didn't violate said beings laws.

How is this a stranger idea than saying an all knowing all and all powerful god can create a world were he knows before creation what everyone and everything is going to do yet it violates his all powerful will?

Of course God has complete responsibility for everything b/c He has ultimate control. However, This does not negate Him making room for others to exercise free will. Also, who said God does not violate free will sometimes? Is there a rule saying He can never impose His will on someone?
My question to you is what have you done to save that child you are so concerned about? That is the question for mankind. Also, I said that He uses bad circumstances for the good of the redeemed, i did not say he only intervenes for the redeemed. Remember, the sun rises on the just and unjust?

If god violates our free will whenever he chooses to, we don't have free will. As far as him having ultimate control need I remind you:

So, how does Epicurus propose that God control each little act of evil? And how do you propose that God control every little act of evil you commit? And if He doesn't control every little act of evil you commit, when does he start intervening?

As far as helping that child I've done nothing. It was already dead by the time I'd seen that photograph. I also don't claim to have the power to help, god does. Its interesting how you can try justify gods despicable actions punishing children just to help the "redeemed". That child died and the photographer killed himself FYI.

I already answered this. Morality either has an external source or it does exist at all. What you call morality is subject to individual interpretation. As soon as one person's morality contradicts another person's morality it is impossible to say who has the true definition of morality b/c morality is individually determined. It is completely circular.

Yes, morality is subject to individual/cultural interpretation and its impossible to say who's morality is the correct one. Disprove that.

Yes, that is correct. You don't like that? Oh well, you aren't God and neither am I. Do I think it seems fair? Not really. However, i know that I cannot understand everything and this is one of those things that faith plays a part in. I can reason that b/c it is God, He is fully just and righteous, so i can trust His ways. However, the part of me that feels it is harsh is where the faith comes in.

No I don't really care as I don't believe in HIM. The point I'm making has nothing to do with fairness it is if god is doing these things humans live in a world were god constantly intervenes in magical ways including causing horrible natural disasters and wars that kill countless we don't have free will, we are nothing more than lab rats.

What you also state about Satan, Adam & Eve would put the root cause for sin squarely at the feet of god. That would mean that all sins are violations of our freewill as they were caused by god.

Exactly what I said- Jesus fulfilled the law.

Really? The heavens and the earth still seem to be here from my observations.

 

[William Gaatjes]

That is a funny link, but it represents a gross misunderstanding of the Law God gave to the Israelites. As I noted on one of my posts above, God is Holy and hates sin. The purpose of all the rituals and laws that God gave to the Israelites was to demonstrate his complete Holiness to the Israelites and the surrounding nations. It was actually never the means of their salvation either. The commandment to love God with all heart, soul and mind is the means for salvation for the Israelites before Christ.

You are wrong.
What you are boasting is slavery. A human construction. "I am in power and all must worship me, for as i will not save thee". A despicable lie that has been used for thousands of years. It is my opinion that at a certain time it will be revealed that the former civilization made the same mistake.

Hypothetically speaking :
If there is a god, that god would want nothing more then people to become aware and become sentient on the same level. Making people consciously choose and choose for the right descisions. Once used as a construct of education, religious texts where changed as a means of glorification. As a means to control for personal bidding. Not for education. And you are actively promoting a lie. If you have to believe in god, believe directly...